Labelling of Genetically Modified Food
1. From the public health point of view, good nutrition at low cost to the world
population, which may be achieved through GM food technology should be
welcomed, provided there is adequate safeguard to potential harmful effects.
2. However, it is not clear to the public, in Hong Kong and elsewhere, what benefits
have so far been enjoyed by consumers, and what are the future benefits. People who
are concerned about the less developed countries are also not certain what the
populations there can gain now and in the future. If GM technology is monopolised
by big companies in developed countries, it is likely that the GM industry will be the
main profit makers, possibly at the expense of the populations in both developed and
developing countries.
3. At the moment, there are many concerns among different sectors, some of which are
arising from lack of understanding of the nature of GM foods which are present today
and those which would be created in the future. There is also a lack of confidence on
the various sectors with vested interests in GM food, including scientists, the food
industry and the regulating agencies.
4. In the Consultation Paper (3.4) it is stated that GM crops do not require the use of as
much pesticide as conventional groups. This may be the case now but it is
contentious as GM crops may promote selective resistance among pests quite rapidly.
As GM crops become more widespread, engineered resistance is likely to be matched
by selective pressure on pest species, and such pest resistance may result in more
pesticide spraying. GM crops may also require special pesticides which are produced
by the same companies holding licences of the GM crops. Farmers will become more
dependent on these companies on both GM seeds and other related products, and the
costs of growing GM food may increase. Also, the table in Annex A (p.21) shows
that with the exception of tomato, the advantage of the majority of GM crops such as
GM soya bean and corn is herbicide tolerance, and this can result in the use of larger
amount of more toxic herbicide to kill weeds, thus killing at the same time the
traditional crops and other plants. This can have more far-reaching damages in the
fields and the environment.
5. Lack of evidence of an (adverse) effect is not evidence of a lack of (adverse) effect.
The recent problems in CJD/BSE have aroused much concern about the potential
risks from foods which have been produced through “unnatural” means. There is
strong suspicion whether governments or the food industry can be relied upon as
safeguards of public health when new clues or evidence on the adverse health effects
of GM food appear some time in the future somewhere in the world. It is too soon to
determine whether exposure to GM foods has or has no significant health implications
directly from human or animal consumption or indirectly via environmental
degradation.
6. The HKSAR Government must recognise the concerns of the many who totally
oppose GM food, and the majority of the public who do not understand the
complexity of the matter. The public are concerned about safety, health and costs of
GM food and their opinions on GM food, on the food industry and on governments
often change. Any incidents, whether (scientifically) substantiated or not, can easily
change public opinion to the extreme.
1
7. There is certainly an urgent need to inform the public the pros and cons of GM foods,
the scientific principles and findings, and the regulatory policies and measures as well
as the politics surrounding GM food, and to update these frequently. The knowledge,
attitude and practice of the public concerning GM food, as well as sentiments and
concerns, be these rational or irrational, must be monitored regularly.
8. The public do expect that the main role of the HKSAR Government should be the
safeguard of public health and public health should be the sole justification for
government intervention. However, a government may face conflicting roles,
especially when a government is lobbied by a powerful industry or commercial sector
or when a government is inclined towards short-term economic interests. When a
government tries to balance public health and short-term economic gains, public
health may suffer.
9. We recognise that this consultation is focussed on the labelling of GM food, which is
only one aspect of the many issues surrounding GM food, including those mentioned
above.
10. We welcome the Consultation Paper as a first step to tackle this very sensitive and
dynamic issue and we hope that the consultation process, formal or informal, must
continue, as any consensus reached today may be rapidly out-dated when new
knowledge emerges and new events occur.
11. The HKSAR Government needs to build up its own expertise in this area with
specialised and independent public health professionals and GM food-related
scientists, and to support development of such experience, skills and expertise in nongovernment sectors, such as universities, other health, consumer and environmental
organisations. There is clearly an inadequate infrastructure and a lack of expertise in
Hong Kong to study and monitor the situation locally and elsewhere, and to inform
and involve the public regularly.
12. There is a belief that labelling of GM food is the first step towards the death of GM
food, as many consumers would choose products without GM food in the ingredients
and the market will quickly shrink. This will adversely affect scientific research on
GM food technology and the real and potential benefits of GM food. At present we
do not have the data and facts to assess these, and the Consultation Paper does not
help to enlighten us on these issues. In 3.5, it says “The labelling of GM food may
not make much difference to consumers who are solely concerned with the safety of
the food they consume”. We would like to know on what data is this statement based.
Even if this is true, it may be so because consumers are not yet aware of the
complexity of the problems and their opinions may change radically and
unpredictably in the near future. Labelling is only one small aspect for informed
decision and there is no real informed decision if consumers have no information to
weight the benefits and risks. We do not have any information about the benefits
(such as the reduction of cots, if any) after GM foods have been introduced in Hong
Kong so far and we are likely to face more uncertainties in the future.
2
13. We do appreciate that it is most difficult, if not impossible, to prove scientifically, that
GM food is absolutely safe or without adverse health effects. But do we have any
mechanism or research in place to study or monitor this? We cannot only rely on
scientists and the industry involved in producing GM food to take up such roles. We
need governments, epidemiologists, public health, medical and health care
professionals, consumer and other organisations, as well as the mass media to take up
such roles. However, by the time when new events and real adverse health effects are
discovered, it may be too late and the whole world population may face a disaster of
unmeasurable magnitude.
14. We can accept that labelling is the reasonable and practicable step at the moment.
However, we would like to suggest that the HKSAR Government should adopt the
Precautionary Principle, which should form the basis for any regulatory measures.
We cannot see such Precautionary Principle in the Consultation Paper. Instead, the
main concerns are focussed on technicalities, and a minimalist approach seems to be
favoured by the Government with preference for less rather more stringent control
measures.
15. In terms of coverage, labelling of loose food items and food prepared at food
establishments is excluded because of practical difficulties (3.6 and 3.7). Does the
Government consider, as a precautionary principle, that these should be labelled? We
submit that in principle, all foods including those mentioned above should be labelled.
The EU and some other countries have such labelling requirements, despite the
practical difficulties. We understand that wet market produce is now routinely
controlled and checked for pesticide in Hong Kong and sources of import can often be
identified. If so, labelling of wet market produce does not seem to be an
insurmountable difficulty. If upstream food sources are labelled, the consumers
would expect that these informations should be disclosed by restaurants through
labelling or other means.
16. In terms of timing, a long grace period of at least 18 months in considered necessary
in the Consultation Paper taking into account the shelf life of prepackage foods. If
legislation is the approach adopted and the law can be amended within a few months
and will take effect in about 2 years including the grace period of 18 months, this is
acceptable. But if it takes a few years before such legislation can be enacted, this
intervening period from now to then should be a long enough grace period, and a
further grace period of 18 months would put such legislation into effect in 2004-5. In
the latter case, we suggest that a grace period of 3-6 months should be sufficient.
17. When faces with the choice of the threshold of 1% and 5% for pan-labelling, the
Consultation Paper prefers the conservative approach of 5%, again based on technical
difficulties. If the EU, Australia and New Zealand adopt a threshold of 1%, why
Hong Kong should not or cannot? If the technicalities are too difficult to resolve
now, we can accept the threshold of 5% so as not to delay the legislation process.
However, with rapid advances in laboratory testing methods, we believe that the
threshold of 1% will become achievable in a few years from now. The threshold, if
adopted in any legislation, must be subject to review, as technology in this field is
advancing rapidly, or when Codex has come up with an international standard.
3
18. As for “significantly different characteristic”, it is imperative that a clear and precise
definition of “significant” and the specific methods of measuring the characteristics
need to be established in this context (4.3). How is it to be determined that
composition or nutritional value is significantly different from that of its conventional
counterpart? In the absence of full nutritional labelling, what monitoring will be put
in place by Government to monitor composition and nutritional content? The other
conditions (4.3, b to e) are supported but again, who will determine if these conditions
are met or breached and what constitutes significant?
19. We support the caution regarding negative labelling and this approach is responsible
and reassuring.
20. Voluntary self-regulation (Option A) has not worked in other industries (such as the
armaments, tobacco and chemical industries), and is not adopted by EU, Australia,
New Zealand and some other countries. We believe that this may be supported by the
food trade, but this is not what the pubic want. If this is the interim measure before
the formal enactment, this can be accepted. If certain foods are not yet included due
to real practical difficulties, such as loose food items this option can also be accepted
for such food items.
21. We support mandatory labelling but we are not sure what is the meaning of legislative
amendments. We suggest that the new legislation must be “enabling legislation”
which allows efficient amendments or subsidiary regulations to take into account new
trends, standards or advances. As the process of legislation is long, there must be no
further delay. If there is delay, the grace period should be shorter. We can support
Option C if the legislation is not delayed by the initial voluntary measures, and if this
interim period is to serve as a grace period.
22. To conclude, we welcome the Consultation Paper. With regard to 5.1, we support (a).
With regard to (b) and (c) we support that the threshold should be 5%, subject to
review to further lowering to 1% with advances in technology or deliberations of
Codex. We support (d) and (e). As for (f), we recommend that other foods should be
covered at the same time of or 1-2 years after the mandatory labelling of pre-package
food if practicable, and if not, other means of informing the public should be
considered. As for (g), we support mandatory labelling and the grace period of 18
months, if the effective date of the new legislation is within 2 years. The new
legislation should have provision for efficient amendments to take into account new
developments.
23. Hong Kong has started late, and it should not be late and slow forever. Government
should be the safe guard of public health, and public health should not be
compromised by short-term economic gains and vested commercial interests. We are
not against all forms of GM food but much needs to be done to address the concerns
of the absolute opposers and to inform the public. Hong Kong is in urgent need of
expertise and resources for research and monitoring of such an important public
health issue, and there is a lack of information on what benefits have we enjoyed from
GM foods since they have been introduced here. Meanwhile, the Precautionary
Principle should be the guiding principle as lack of evidence of risk is not evidence of
no risk.
4